Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Soviets would most likely have tried taking over Pakistan as well, given our access to Arabian sea. We had to act quick, before any minority pro-soviet elements in Pakistan could gain any voice.
It was a good cause, considering the behaviour of the communists in Afghanistan.
As for theatre:
DAWN.COM | World | No hot pursuit in Pakistan: Gates
None of these countries except China Iran and Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. Therefore our concerns are more relevant. Though Iran supported NA, we have a mutual interest to see the end of the drugs trade --which is having a bad effect on the region.
It was actually taleban that brought stability, which is why they were welcomed in the first place. They did make some silly mistakes though and it cost them later on.
Pakistanis are not enemies of the US. But we want what is best for our region, and this is withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.
We arent linear. Some do want this, some dont. I personally think withdrawal is the only option. A troops surge wont bring any changes at all. It will be just a band aid solution. Not change the eventual result, i.e. US and NATO will exit from Afghanistan and Taliban will rule the country again. This so simple and verifable from the achievements of the last 8 years, what dent they have done to Taliban, except killing the innocent civilians and few Taliban’s perhaps.
Overall the west is a loser where ever, they have tried to venture with sheer power. Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.
they banned channels that were showing "bollywood" musicals....nuff said.
by the way, "Afghanis" refers to the national currency of Afghanistan. The adjective used to describe the people of Afghanistan would be AFGHANS
what happened to the soviets when they increased their presense?
i think you dont know the history of Afghanistan too well. It is showing.
I doubt Pakistan would allow indians to fly over the air space.
Ship routes can prove risky, and too expensive to be worth it. Cheapest way is only by road. 70% of the goods Afghanistan imports are coming from the southern ports
so why can't you beat the naxal farmers in 20/28 indian states? Looks like they blew up a few schools a few days back (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...adies-for-polls-today/articleshow/5297914.cms) and are always killing soldiers and law enforcement officers in Bihar?
You should take care of this "single biggest threat to india" (as your PM dubbed it) before even contemplating sending troops to a land totally foreign to them.
so why are they killing "fellow indians"
People born in Pakistan who fight the Army or the people are not Pakistanis. They surrendered that honour. PA is fighting all anti-state elements, and they're doing a damn good job (if you are following the news properly)
doubtful...moot point anyways, the Muslims were blessed with Partition. The patriotic non-Muslims adopted a new nationality.
Since then, no invaders.....
The Sikhs bhaiyon aar bayno come here to visit their holy sites and enjoy our warm hospitality.
Official map of india?
We're occupying Kashmir? Why is it that Pakistani Kashmir sees hardly any social problems or insurgencies; whereas indian Kashmir is often seeing riots and calls for independence? Including the Sri Nagar example i gave
nope. Not at all.
Once the Americans are gone, shouldnt be a problem for the Chinese. As it is, Chinese already won a contract to partake in the largest FDI initiative in the war-torn country (Aynak copper field)
That is true. But as was the case in 1980s, i think once again we will reap the benefits in the long run if we play our cards right. The Afghans do need us for their trade & economy; that is why Karzai expressed his unhappiness that we were planning to build a seperation wall along the long porous border.
Technically, we are a major non-NATO ally. Why should we "shoot away yankees" ??
Taleban were mostly Afghans, so i dont see how you can justify calling their tenure an "occupation"
after the civil war, they brought many good reforms to the country. Their only problem was that they gave impugnity to the foreign fighters who should have been re-patriated. They also were using some objectionable methods to punish criminals and law breakers (similar to the Northern Alliance)
I'd have no problem with that. Depends on the will of Afghans. It's an ancient country, would be sad to see it break up.
GID and ISI are working to create a bridge between moderate taleban and the NATO forces. Americans already gave the 'green-light' for 'talks'
have fun with that....see how much credibility he has in the Afghan (sorry, KABUL) street
and the Mughal Empire controlled hindoostan. Those were days of glory.
your point?
history is history. It's good to LEARN from history. Afghans have never really been united, due to the tribal and polarized nature of the society. But they always united against occupiers, and they always won.
the militarily superior soviets were humiliated and forced to abandon their weapons and run away, after a nice prolonged exposure to the mujahideen
A productive and conducive environment for a stable and prosperous Afghanistan is only feasible when foreign forces withdraw. What they should have done 8 years ago, they did not. Now exit strategy is the ONLY strategy. Let the Afghans control their affairs and their country. The investment and the aid projects must come in once security is established and a credible govt. establishes peace and unity throughout the nation
the same way U.S. doesnt want anti-American terrorists to roam freely in the region, we dont want (and we will NEVER allow) anti-Pakistani terrorists to roam freely in the region.
We have the ability and the will to ensure that never happens.
You are either WITH Pakistan/Kashmir, or AGAINST Pakistan/Kashmir.
and if you are AGAINST Pakistan/Kashmir, then there are 170+ million people to confront.
Last edited:
